Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 20

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 19 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 21 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


August 20

edit

00:00, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 158.181.83.238

edit

How can Wikipedia ignore this important Professor of Labour Law at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland? Can you help solve this problem? 158.181.83.238 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted the draft for review? When you're ready, click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button and a reviewer will check it out. C F A 💬 03:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on a quick look, it doesn't appear to me as if a single one of your cited sources meets the triple criterion of being reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule. Without several sources which do meet these criteria, no draft can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and be accepted as an article.
I believe the notability criteria for academics are a bit different, but they depend on evidence of the subject's work being accepted and cited, which again your draft does not do.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 20 August 2024 review of submission by TheDutchArchivist

edit

Hi, I'm new to the website, most of my activity is fixing or expanding information on pre-existing Dutch movie articles. (I'm from the Netherlands) A few days ago, I created a draft of SpangaS op Survival, a Dutch film based on the TV series that Disney distributed in the Netherlands around 2009. When I submitted it, it was rejected because of the lack of reliable sources, the sources I originally added to the article were from official websites related to the film. I have a question regarding editing articles in general, what sources/websites are considered reliable for articles about film and television? I'm not an expert on it and I need help regarding this field so that I can improve my wiki skills. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDutchArchivist: my guess is that the reason why this was declined for insufficient referencing is that most of the information in the draft is not supported by citations, so it's not clear where the info is coming from. Personally, I would have probably declined this instead for lack of notability, because it doesn't seem to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Do mediums like newspapers, magazines or old archived websites from that report on the film count as reliable and add to the citations? even if it's from a different country that isn't the US? I think that could work.TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDutchArchivist: newspapers, magazines, and other secondary sources are pretty much the gold standard (assuming of course they are reliable and independent), so yes. And they don't have to be from any particular country, or in any particular language; non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. Also, they don't have to be online, although if you're citing offline sources please make sure to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate your help, I will re-submit the article again once I found enough sources. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't see emphasised in the replies above, TheDutchArchivist, is that most of the sources (and all those used to establish notability, need to be wholly independent of the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Dutch person, I can confirm that these are good sources and independent from the subject. The Algemeen Dagblad is a national newspaper with no vested interests in te film, the Kijkwijzer is a reliable source, IMDb is a reliable source, the Netherlands Film Festival uses the NFF Archive as a source, Nu.nl is a national news site, and AllesOverFilm also has a good reputation. Luijtenphotos (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos, please do not try to give other editors advice on reliable sources when you don't know what en-WP sees as reliable. IMDb is not acceptable as a source here, since it relies on user-generated content. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use IMDB as a source though, I used BoxOfficeMojo though TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Satipem

edit

I just created an article about the regional news channel. Can somebody please improve the problems and move the article to the original. Satipem (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how this works, @Satipem - if you want an article on this subject to exist, you need to do the work yourself. This includes finding and citing sources, as well as writing the draft. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it for you, but first you need to establish that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Read Your First Article if you haven't already, and then see whether you can improve your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Piwiki504

edit

Hello my initial draft for this page was rejected a few months ago for insufficient sources, and I can see that some others have since contributed to it, but it's been rejected again. I can see there are now a lot more sources referenced. What more will be needed for approval? Piwiki504 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwiki504 Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
This draft does little more than tell about the topic. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has not yet been demonstrated. This does not require more sources, it requires better sources. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Ggzion

edit

My draft was declined after the reviewer commented that the sources were not reliable. While yes, I had used the school's own website as sources most of the time, I found that the instances I used them as sources were ones were there was no opportunity for any other references to be used. For example, when I was talking about leadership specific to the school (coordinators for each grade), I cited the official website of the school as there wouldn't be any newspaper/other website reviewing this. Ggzion (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ggzion The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic(a school in this case), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. An article should not merely document existence. In the past, before current guidelines were developed, many articles about schools were created that merely show existence, but guidelines have become tighter since then, and volunteers have not yet removed older articles.
If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the school would not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Ggzion (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443

edit

i want to create a page or article about my state progress between the period of 2024 to 2029. Please help me 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your first article.
You need to start by finding several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule.
Then you summarise what those sources say about the subject.
Your thoughts, knowledge, and conclusions have no place in an article: it should just be a summary of what the independent reliable sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

edit

This is the simplest page I have created from home that includes the latest work with source code and is about the god. It has been created for common people and should be respected. Robstat7 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reply I have just given to the previous section, #19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

edit

This is notable topic. Please provide me volunteers to help improve this page. Robstat7 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

edit

Thank you for your kind guidance. Actually this page doesn't have a COI. Robstat7 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please don't keep starting new sections here: add to the existing section.
2. Your draft has been rejected, for the reasons I gave above. Please stop. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads for this draft will be reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_20&oldid=1242285735"